Appeal No. 2001-0243
Application No. 09/001,285
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026
(1984).
The appellant submits that the Lu reference is not
anticipatory with respect to the subject matter recited in
claims 8 and 13 because it does not meet the limitations in
these claims pertaining to the “lamp assembly.” Of the
examiner’s finding that Lu’s TV set 72 responds to these
limitations, the appellant argues that a TV set is not a “lamp
assembly” as defined and described in the specification or
under any normal interpretation of this term.
During patent examination claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
underlying specification without reading limitations from the
specification into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969). Contrary to the
appellant’s implication, while the specification does describe
“lamp assembly” 50 in some detail, it does not assign a formal
definition thereto. Hence, as employed in claims 8 and 13, the
term “lamp assembly” is to be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification without
reading in limitations from the specification. As correctly
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007